The feminists are having another tantrum. The New York chapter of the National Organization for Women and the New York Civil Liberties Union are squealing about a 64-page decision in a workplace, class-action suit brought by their friends in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The feminists are so accustomed to having their gender doctrines prevail in the courts, in the bureaucracy, in the media and in academia that they can’t deal with being told the truth, i.e., that their notions don’t make sense and are unfair to others, especially employers, husbands and fathers.

Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan tossed out this case in which some female employees accused financial and media services giant Bloomberg LP of workplace discrimination because their bosses failed to pretend that pregnant employees and those who took time off for maternity or other purposes were really doing the same work as those who worked faithfully full-time on the job. This is another example of the fact that the feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work, but always was more pay for less work.

Referring to the way the women’s case was based on a few anecdotes and not statistics, the judge wrote, “‘J’accuse!’ is not enough in court. Evidence is required.”

Mirabile dictu! The judge really shocked feminists, since they usually win when they assert fault against the so-called patriarchy without any evidence or fear of prosecution for perjury.

The trouble with many younger women is that feminism falsely taught them to plan their life career in the workplace without any space or time for marriage, a husband or children. They have a total lack of understanding of how demanding a new baby is, and how they really want to spend their time after a baby arrives.

When Mother Nature asserts herself and babies appear, the women who have been misled by feminist ideology expect their employers and, indeed, the rest of the world, to accommodate their change of schedule. The feminists expect their employer to assume the costs of the priorities and interruptions that once were easily absorbed in the traditional lifestyle of husband-provider and full-time homemaker.

However, as Judge Preska wrote, “The law does not mandate ‘work-life balance.'” It’s OK for the employer to value employees who give ultimate dedication to their job, “however unhealthy that may be for family life.”

Anybody who went to work for Bloomberg LP should have known that the company “explicitly makes all-out dedication its expectation.” Furthermore, Wall Street is a naturally aggressive and hypercompetitive 24/7 culture.

Employee decisions that preference family over job come with a price. Employers have no duty to accommodate their employees’ children or child-care needs other than the unpaid leave required by the Family Medical Leave Act.

Judge Preska quoted Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, as saying: “There’s no such thing as work-life balance. There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences.”

The judge wrote that Welch’s view reflects, “the free-market employment system we embrace in the United States,” and the law “does not require companies to ignore employees’ work-family tradeoffs – and they are tradeoffs – when deciding about employee pay and promotions.”

How to balance work and family is the No. 1 topic in women’s magazines today. Article after article tries to present a plan for balance between baby and job, plus advice to help the mother not feel guilty when the baby gets the short end of the stick.

However, the articles sound hypocritical because for years, the feminist movement has carried on a strenuous campaign to move all homemakers out of the home (“a comfortable concentration camp,” in Betty Friedan’s words) and into the workplace. Feminists argue that caring for babies is not a worthy occupation for an educated woman. They have even propagated the myth that for expecting mothers to care for their own babies is an example of the oppression of women by the patriarchy.

Some women have combined a successful career with the role of wife and mother. Margaret Thatcher is a prime example. But that kind of success usually requires a cooperative husband, which the feminists usually lack.

Gloria Steinem noted this in a bitter comment this month when she launched a documentary about her life. Sneering at the two women she apparently hates the most, she attempted to demean Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as women “only a man could love.” That’s right; men do love the non-feminists.